Abstrac

Fracture
fractured
regarded
result in
models
phenome
losses or
models
natural f
role in na
In this stu
mud in
deformab
and a lim
derived
theory (R
single f
deformat
relations
describe
general
previous
yield-pow
equation
various ty
The gove
finite diff
paramete
volume a
several
propertie
Shortcom
SPE 1
Mode
A Sen
Mehran
Technol
Projects

Copyright 201
This paper wa
This paper wa
paper have no
the Society of
Society of Pet
abstract must

ct
ballooning
d reservoirs
d as an influx o
misdiagnose
have been
enon and dist
r kicks. Amon
and mecha
fractures is c
aturally fractu
udy a mathem
nvasion thro
ble fracture w
mited extensi
based on the
Reynoldss Eq
fracture. Co
tion law to de
hip, and a
mud rheolog
and much cl
ones. Descri
wer-law mod
into a vers
types of drillin
erning equatio
fference metho
ers can affe
and rate of m
parameters
es of the
mings of the pr
163034
eling of F
nsitivity A
Mehrabi, SP
ogy, Iran, Mo
s
12, Society of Petrole
as prepared for prese
as selected for presen
ot been reviewed by t
f PetroleumEngineer
troleumEngineers is
contain conspicuous
usually occu
and is of
of formation f
ed costly oper
developed
tinguish it fro
ng these bore
anisms, open
considered to
ured reservoir
matical model
ough a dis
with two imp
on. A govern
e lubrication
quation) for r
onsidering a
escribe the pr
yield-power-
gy, makes th
loser to the r
ibing the fluid
del turns
satile model
ng mud rheolo
on is solved nu
od. Results sho
ct fracture b
mud loss/gain
related to t
fracture
roposed mode

Fracture
Analysis
PE, Mohamm
ojtaba Porde
umEngineers
entation at the 2012 S
ntation by an SPE pro
the Society of Petrole
rs, its officers, or mem
prohibited. Permissio
s acknowledgment of
urs in natura
ften mistaken
fluid, which m
rations. Sever
to treat th
om convention
ehole ballooni
ning/closing
have the ma
rs.
is developed f
sk-shaped a
permeable wa
ning equation
approximati
radial flow in
an exponent
ressure-apertu
-law model
his model mo
reality than t
d rheology w
the governi
as it includ
ogy.
umerically usi
ow how differe
ballooning a
n. The effects
the mechanic
are analyze
el are outlined
Ballooni
s
mad Zeygham
el Shahri, SP
SPE Nigerian Annual
ogram committee foll
eumEngineers and a
mbers. Electronic repr
on to reproduce in pri
SPE copyright.
ally
nly
may
ral
his
nal
ing
of
ain
for
and
alls
is
ion
n a
tial
ure
to
ore
the
with
ing
des
ing
ent
and
of
cal
ed.
d.
1.
D
ca
m
sm
th
de
le
am
ba
of
lo
Fr
ba
pr
fra
m
flo
dr
flu
w
(M
m
on
sit
ga
de
un
ne
fo
A
ab
(1
bo
Ra
te

ng in Na
mi, SPE, Petr
PE, University
International Confere
owing review of inform
re subject to correctio
roduction, distribution
nt is restricted to an a
. Introducti
rilling throug
auses significa
mainly due to
mall amount o
he fracture;
epends on the
ss it can be
mount of los
allooning/brea
f the main m
oss/gain occurs
racture balloo
alloon; it oc
ressurized an
acture. Fractu
mud circulatio
ows out of th
rilling is inter
uid and the c
eight and to
Majidi, et al, 2
mud gain, this
nly is not ap
tuation. There
ain/loss based
escribes the ph
nder which fl
ecessary to di
ormation fluid
Limited num
bout the mec
989) reporte
orehole wall
am Babu (199
mperature va
aturally F
roleum Unive
y of Tulsa Dr
ence and Exhibition h
mation contained in a
on by the author(s). T
n, or storage of any pa
abstract of not more t
ion
gh naturally
ant mud loss.
the flow int
of leak-off int
the leak-off
e porosity of t
e ignored in
ss through th
athing or fract
mechanisms u
s while drillin
oning corresp
ccurs when
nd drilling f
ure breathing o
on is decreas
he fracture. U
rpreted as an i
ommon cure
o insure an
2008); but if t
kind of treati
ppropriate but
efore a quanti
d on a mathe
hysical pheno
low within th
stinguish mud
.
mber of studie
chanism of t
ed the elastic
as the mech
98) considered
ariations in th

Fractured
ersity of
rilling Resea
eld in Abuja, Nigeria,
an abstract submitted
The material does not
art of this paper witho
than 300 words; illust
fractured fo
The mud los
to the fractur
to the matrix o
f through th
the matrix bu
comparison
he fractures.
ture deformati
under which
ng fractured fo
ponds to infla
the bottom
fluid flows
occurs when t
sed and drill
sually any flo
influx of the
is to increase
adequate ov
this influx is d
ing and contr
t also will w
itative analysi
ematical mod
omenon and m
e fractures ha
d gain from f
es have been
this phenome
c deformatio
hanism of ba
d the ballooni
he wellbore. T

d Reserv
rch
, 6-8 August 2012.
d by the author(s). Co
t necessarily reflect a
out the written consen
trations may not be c
formations
s happens
res and a
or wall of
he matrix
ut more or
with the
Fracture
ion is one
the mud
ormations.
ating of a
hole is
into the
the rate of
ling fluid
ow during
formation
e the mud
verbalance
due to the
olling not
worsen the
is of mud
del, which
mechanism
appens, is
flowing of
published
enon. Gill
on of the
allooning.
ing due to
Tare et al.


voirs:
ontents of the
any position of
nt of the
opied. The
2 SPE 163034

(2001) suggested that some geological and
operational parameters such as well trajectory and
rheological properties of drilling fluids can affect
wellbore ballooning. Sanfillipo et al. (1997)
approached this phenomenon by using diffusivity
equation; they considered a non-deformable
fracture with a constant aperture and a Newtonian
drilling fluid. Verga et al. (2000) developed a
model by using diffusivity equation. Using a non-
Newtonian fluid as their drilling mud, they
emphasized on the importance of the fluid rheology
on the result of their model. Lavrov and Tronvoll
(2004, 2005, and 2006) also worked on this
phenomenon and published three publications. Two
of their publications were based on circular
fractures and one of them modelled fracture
ballooning through a rectangular fracture; however,
exponential pressure-aperture deformation law was
not considered along with yield-power-law
rheology at one publication. Majidi et al. (2008a)
developed some theoretical frameworks about
fracture ballooning. They developed a new model
based on yield-power-law rheology and radial flow
through a constant aperture fracture with an
unlimited extension. They showed that when the
pressure gradients drop below a threshold level,
drilling fluid cannot penetrate into the fracture.
They showed that the greater the yield value the
sooner the loss will stop. In another study Majidi et
al. (2008b) considered a horizontal disk-shaped
fracture located in an impermeable rock. They
assumed that the fracture is initially saturated with
liquid under the static formation pressurep
o
; all
properties of the drilling fluid were assumed to be
identical to the fluid that was already in the fracture
and both were described by yield-power-law
rheology. The fracture wall deformation was
described by a linear aperture-pressure deformation
law. Majidi et al. (2008c) finally developed a new
model by considering formation fluid as a
Newtonian fluid and drilling fluid as a non-
Newtonian fluid flowing through an infinitely long
disk-shaped fracture; but this time the fracture is
not deformable and matrix rock was also assumed
to be so tight that the leak-off through the fracture
wall can be neglected. Ozdemirtas et al. (2007)
considered the planar, horizontal, square-shaped
fracture in a non-permeable formation. The linear
deformation law was assumed for the fracture, and
the drilling and formation fluid were both
considered as a Newtonian fluid. The emphasis was
on the fracture roughness effect.
To the best of the authors knowledge the latest
published paper pertaining to fracture ballooning
was developed by Pordel Shahri et al. (2011) in
which they analyzed the effect of different
pressure-aperture deformation laws on the mud loss
rate and cumulative loss.
In this work a deformable non-propagating circular
fracture with non-permeable walls is considered.
Formation fluid has the same rheology as the
drilling fluid, and the fracture wall deforms while
pressurizing/depressurizing under the exponential
pressure-aperture deformation law. Yield-power-
law rheology is considered for formation and
drilling fluids. Smooth fracture surface is assumed
for the single fracture. The aim of this study is to
investigate the sensitivity of fracture ballooning to
some parameters which are mainly associated with
the mechanical properties of the fracture.
2. Mathematical Modeling
2.1. Mathematical Description
A horizontal disk-shaped fracture with a radius of
i
c
is considered. The fracture is initially filled with
a liquid under the static formation pressureP
o
.
Neither fracture plugging by mud particles nor
fracture wall permeability are considered. The
formation fluid and the drilling fluid are assumed to
have the same properties; both are considered
incompressible fluid with yield-power-law
rheology. A constant initial aperture is considered
along the fracture which implies that the fracture
surfaces are smooth. Fracture aperture in a given
point is assumed to be an exponential function of
the fluid pressure within the fracture in that point.
Leak-off through the fracture walls is neglected
(which is not an unreasonable assumption in
carbonate reservoir). At t = u a vertical well of
radius i
w
hits the circular fracture in the center and
thus the pressure at i = i
w
increases from P
o
to the
borehole pressure,P
w
, during a short time interval
, t
kc
, and the drilling fluid propagates through the
single circular fracture. In this study t
kc
is
considered equal to zero for most calculations.
2.2. Fluid Rheology
In this study drilling and formation fluids are
modelled by yield-power-law rheology. The
equation which relates shear stress to shear rate for
fluids with yield-power-law rheology is as follows:
=
y
+k()
m
(1)
Where
y
is the yield-power stress, k is consistency
factor, and m is flowbehaviour index of the fluid.
2.3. Deformation Law for Fracture Wall
The main mechanism under which fracture
ballooning occurs is the deformation of fracture
walls. Two empirical correlations can be used to
model the relation between fracture aperture and
pressure inside the fracture: a linear deformation
law, and an exponential deformation law. In this
study exponential deformation law is considered;
this empirical law was proposed by Bruel et al.
(1994) describing the fracture aperture at a given
SPE 163034 3



point changes as an exponential function of fluid
pressure at that point:
w = w
s
e
-(o
n
-)
3

(2)
Where w is the fracture aperture in a particular
point, p is the fracture pressure in that point,
n
is
the normal stress, w
s
is the fracture aperture
whenp =
n
, and is an empirical coefficient
(compressibility of the fracture). Effect of some of
these parameters on fracture ballooning will be
analyzed at the end of this section.
2.4. Governing Equation
Making use of conservation of mass and
Reynoldss lubrication theory for radial flow of an
incompressible fluid in a deformable fracture in
absence of leak-off through fracture walls, the
following equation is derived:
(wv)
i
+
1
i
wv +
w
t
= u
(S)
Where i is the distance from borehole center in the
fracture plane (z = u) and v is the average radial
velocity of the fluid in the fracture.
Average radial velocity for yield-power-law
drilling fluid at a distance i from the borehole axis
can be derived using the momentum conservation
equation in cylindrical coordinate.
v =
m
2m+1
w
m+1
m
2
m+1
m
k
1
m
_-
p
i
-_
2m+1
m+1
] _
2
y
w
]_
1
m

(4)
Substituting average velocity from Eq. 4 into Eq. S:
[
m
2m+1
_
1
2
m+1
m
k
1
m
_

i
_w
2m+1
m
_
p
i
+
2m+1
m+1
2
y
w
]
1
m
_
+[
m
2m+ 1
_
1
2
m+1
m
k
1
m
_w
2m+1
m
1
i
_
p
i
+
2m+1
m+1
2
y
w
_
1
m
=
w
t

(S)
Substituting the exponential deformation law into
the Eq. S yields the governing equation:
[
m
2m+1
_
w
0
2m+1
m
2
m+1
m k
1
m
_

i
_e
-[
2m+1
m
[
on-
3

_
p
i
+
2m +1
m+1
2
y
w
0
e
(on-)
3
]
1
m
_
+[
m
2m+1
_
w
0
2m+1
m
2
m+1
m k
1
m
_e
-(on-)
3
1
i
_
p
i
+
2m +1
m+1
2
y
w
0
e
(on-)
3
]
1
m
=

t
_w
0
e
(on-)
3
]
(6)
2.5. Mud Loss/Gain Flow Rate
Mud loss flow rate at radius r is obtained by
multiplication of the area (2iw) and the average
velocity at that radius:
Q = Av = 2iwv (7)
Using wellbore radius and entry fracture aperture,
the mud flow rate at the wellbore at each time step
is calculated from the following equation:
Q = 2i
w
w
w
v
w
(8)
2.6. Cumulative Loss
Cumulative loss is the total amount of mud loss
within the fracture from the initial time, t = u, to
the final time, t = t
I
.
v = _ Q ut
t=t
I
t=0
(9)
2.7. Boundary Conditions
Fracture walls are considered impermeable and
thus the fracture tip acts like a no-flow boundary.
p
i
= u at i = i
c
(1u)
Vertical borehole intersects the circular fracture at
the center and pressure at the borehole wall i = i
w

increases in a short period of time, t
kc
, from P
o
to
P
w
. In this study a zero value for t
kc
is considered
for most calculations. However, for simulating kick
situation and comparing it with loss situation when
borehole hits the fracture for the first time, and also
investigating the effect of t
kc
on the amount and
rate of loss another boundary condition is
considered.
_
p = p
0
-
(p
0
- p
w
)t
t
kc
u t t
kc
p = p
w
t t
kc
(11)
This boundary condition is useful for modelling
kick condition in fractured formations. Effect of
t
kc
will be analyzed in sensitivity analysis section.
2.8. Initial Condition
Initially, pressure within the fracture is uniform and
equal to formation pressure P
o
.
4 SPE 163034

3. Sensitivity Analysis
3.1. Pressure distribution
Fig. 1 illustrates pressure distribution within the
fracture at different times for the model simulated
with default values listed in Table A.1. The figure
clearly shows how the pressure within the fracture
approaches the borehole pressure as time elapses.
3.2. Effect of
is an empirical coefficient associated with the
fracture normal compressibility (7). It depends on
the structure and the morphology of the fracture
surfaces. According to Eq. 2, it is expected that
opening and closing of the fracture take place
easier for higher values, than they do for lower
ones. This is depicted in Fig. 2a. The figure shows
that the changes in fracture aperture due to changes
in pressure are larger for a fracture with higher
compressibility coefficient than a fracture with
lower compressibility coefficient. This will result
in more conductivity of the fracture and thus more
mud loss flow rate (Fig. 2b) and cumulative mud
loss (Fig. 2c).
3.3. Effect of r
e

Effect of fracture radius is illustrated in Figs.3a and
3b. The figures show that fracture radius does not
affect the initial part of the mud loss curves, while
it significantly affects the end of these curves. The
figures also reveal that the larger the radius, the
larger the cumulative loss and mud loss flow rate.
3.4. Effect of r
w

Effect of wellbore radius, r
w
, on the mud loss rate
is shown in Fig. 4a and Fig. 4b. r
w
values influence
the beginning of the loss rate curve but as time
proceeds the mud loss rate curves for all r
w
values
converge to zero. According to Eq. 8, a fracture
with larger wellbore radius will undergo larger
initial mud invasion. This will, in turn, result in
faster pressurizing of the fracture and thus a sharper
decline in the mud loss rate. Thus after a while, the
mud loss rate in the fracture with larger wellbore
radius drops below the fracture with smaller
wellbore radius as shown in Fig. 4a.
3.5. Effect of o
n

n
is the normal stress acting perpendicular to the
fracture plane and it virtually shows how much
internal pressure (i.e., fluid pressure within in the
fracture) the fracture can withstand without the risk
of fracture propagation. Considering a non-
propagating fracture implies that fluid pressure
inside the fracture must not exceed
n
. Effect of

n
on fracture aperture is demonstrated in Fig.5a.
The figure demonstrates that the fracture aperture
gets larger as normal stress gets smaller. Effect of

n
on mud loss flow rate is shown in Fig.5b.
Fractures with smaller
n
have larger apertures
(Fig.5a) and thus undergo larger initial mud
invasion and faster loss rate decline, as shown in
Fig.5b. Cumulative losses are also affected by
n
;
the smaller the normal stress, the larger the
cumulative loss, as shown in Fig.5c. This can also
be explained by the larger fracture aperture which
occurs in smaller normal stress values.
3.6. Effect of w
x

w
s
is the maximum attainable fracture width i.e. the
fracture width when the fluid pressure within the
deformable non-propagating fracture is equal to the
normal stress
n
. According to Eq. (2), larger w
s

yields larger fracture apertures. It should be noted
that this larger aperture is not due to an elevated
formation fluid pressure. Similar to the effect of
wellbore radius, a fracture with larger w
s
initially
undergoes a larger mud invasion, but then due to
the sharper decline in mud loss rate, mud loss curve
of a fracture with higher w
s
drops below the mud
loss curve of a fracture with smaller w
s
(Fig. 6a).
Effect of w
s
on the cumulative loss is also
demonstrated in Fig. 6b.
3.7. Effect of t
ke

t
kc
is the duration of pressure increase or decrease.
During this time interval fracture pressure increases
from P
o
to the wellbore pressure P
w
, or in a kick
situation it is the time interval during which the
fracture pressure decreases from P
w
to the initial
fracture pressure, P
o
. Fig.7 shows the result of the
simulation for a non-zero t
kc
value, where a vertical
well hits a disk-shaped fracture at the center at
t = u and the pressure within the fracture is
increased and then remained constant. The second
half of this figure is used to model a kick situation
in which a rapid influx of fracture fluid happens
when the overbalance pressure due to the mud
circulation is removed and thus a pressure drop
occurs along the fracture fluid. Effect of t
kc
on
modeling of a kick situation is demonstrated in Fig.
7a to Fig. 7c. According to this simulation,
considering larger times for pressure drop/rise
intervals affects the duration of mud loss or kick
before stabilization.
4. Conclusions
A mathematical model which describes the physics
of borehole ballooning is developed. The
mechanism under which opening/closing of
fractures of a naturally fractured reservoir occur for
a circular non-deformable single fracture is
simulated. The following conclusions can be drawn
from the sensitivity analysis that has been carried
out:
Larger compressibility coefficient, , results in
larger mud loss rate and greater cumulative loss
SPE 163034 5



Increasing the fracture radius increases the
cumulative loss
Increasing the borehole radius increases the rate
of the mud loss at initial times and the rate of mud
loss rate decline
Larger normal stress,
n
, results in higher
cumulative loss
The maximum attainable fracture
aperture,w
s
,can largely influence the rate of the
mud loss and the cumulative loss
t
kc
affects the duration of pressure stabilization.
Increasing t
kc
increases the time under which mud
loss event or influx of formation fluid takes place.
This may also increases the time needed for the
phenomenon to be observed on the surface.
A shortcoming of this model is that a smooth
fracture surface is considered, a further
development in fracture surface modelling would
be attainable by introducing a surface based on
fractal geometry. Further improvements of the
model include: considering a permeable wall
around the fracture, modelling the plugging
phenomena by particles contained in drilling fluid,
modelling formation of a mud cake, and finally
developing a model for fracture networks which is
more realistic than a single fracture model.
Nomenclature
Symbol Parameter Unit
[ Empirical coefficient of fracture
normal compressibility
[Po
-1
]
y Shear rate |1s]

Drilling mud yield stress [Po]

o
n
Normal stress [Po]
A
Cross sectional area of
fracture at radius r
|m
2
]
k Consistency factor [Po. s
m
]
m Flow behaviour index
p
o
Formation fluid pressure [Po]
p
w
Borehole pressure [Po]
Mud loss rate [m
3
s ]
r Radial distance to well |m]
r
w
Wellbore radius [m]
r
c
Fracture radius [m]
t Time |s]
t
]
Final time [s]
t
kc
Duration of pressure
increase/decrease
[s]
I Cumulative loss [m
3
]
I

Local average radial velocity

of the fluid in the fracture
|ms]
I

w
Average radial velocity of the
fluid at r
w

|ms]
w Local fracture aperture |m]
w
0
Initial fracture aperture |m]
w
s
Maximum attainable
fracture aperture
|m]
w
w
Fracture aperture at the
wellbore
|m]
References
1. Bruel, D., Cacas, M.C., Ledoux, E., and de
Marsily, G. (1994) Modelling Storage
Behaviour in a Fractured Rock Mass, J.
Hydrology 162, 267.
2. Gill, J .A. (1989) How Borehole
Ballooning Alters Drilling Responses,
Oil & Gas J., 87, 43.
3. Lavrov, A., and Tronvoll, J ., (2004)
Modelling Mud Loss in Fractured
Formations Paper SPE 88700 presented
at the 1
1th
Abu Dhabi International
Petroleum Exhibition and Conference held
in Abu Dhabi, UAE.
4. Lavrov, A., and Tronvoll, J ., (2005)
Mechanics of Borehole Ballooning in
Naturally-Fractured Formations Paper
SPE 93747 presented at the 14
th
SPE
Middle East Oil & Gas show and
Conference held in Bahrain International
Exhibition Centre, Bahrain.
5. Lavrov, A., and Tronvoll, J . (2006)
Numerical Analysis of Radial Flow in a
Natural Fracture: Applications in Drilling
Performance and Reservoir
Characterization Paper SPE 103564
presented at the Abu Dhabi International
Petroleum Exhibition and Conference held
in Abu Dhabi U.A.E.
6. Majidi, R., Miska, S.Z., Yu, M. and
Thompson, L.G., (2008a) Quantitative
Analysis of Mud Losses in Naturally
Fractured Reservoirs: The Effect of
Rheology Paper SPE 114130 presented at
the 2008 SPE Western Regional and
Pacific Section AAPG J oint Meeting held
in Bakersfield, California, U.S.A.
7. Majidi, R., Miska, S.Z., Yu, M. and
Thompson, L.G., (2008b) Fracture
Ballooning in Naturally Fractured
Formations: Mechanism and Controlling
Factors Paper SPE 115526 presented at
the 2008 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition held in
Denver, Colorado, USA.
8. Majidi, R., Miska, S.Z., Yu, M. and
Thompson, L.G., (2008c) Modelling of
Drilling Fluid losses in Naturally
Fractured Formations Paper SPE 114630
presented at the 2008 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition held
in Denver, Colorado, USA.
9. Pordel Shahri, M., Zeyghami, M., and
Majidi, R. (2011) Investigation of
Fracture Ballooning and Breathing in
6

10.
11.

Table 1
Symb
P
w
P
o
m

y
w
s

k

n
i
w
i
c
t
kc
t
I

Figu


Naturally Fra
Fracture Def
150817 prese
International
held in Abuja
Ram Babu, D
Behavior of
High-Temper
Journal of
Engineering,
Sanfillippo, F
J ., and
Characteriza
While Drill
presented at
1: Defau
bol Paramet
w
Borehol
o
Formati
m Flow be
y
Yield st
s
Maximu
Empiric
consiste
n
normal
w
wellbor
c
fracture
c
duration
I
final tim
re 1: Pressu
fracture
actured Reser
formation La
ented at the
Conference
a, Nigeria.
D. (1998) E
Muds on Lo
rature Deep-W
petroleum
20, 49.
F., Brignoli, M
Bezzola,
ation of Cond
ling, Paper
t the 1997
ult data use
ter
le pressure |P
ion fluid press
ehaviour index
tress |pa]
um attainable
cal coefficient
ency factor [p
stress |pa]
re radius |m]
e radius |m]
n of pressure i
me |s]
ure distribut
at different
rvoirs: Effect
aw Paper SP
Nigeria Annu
and Exhibiti
Effect of P-p
oss/Gain Suri
Well Drilling
science a
M., Santarelli,
C. (199
ductive Fractur
r SPE 381
SPE Europe
ed for nume
Pa]
sure |Pa]
x (power law
fracture apert
t of fracture no
a. s
m
]
increase |s]
tion along th
times

of
PE
ual
ion
p-T
ing
g.
and
F,
97)
res
77
ean
erical simu
exponent)
ture |m]
ormal compre
he Fig

Forma
Hague
12. Tare, U
(2001)
Case
Paper
SPE A
Exhibi
13. Verga
Maglio
Detec
Fractu
Reserv
at the
Confer
ulation
essibility |pa
-
ure 2a: Frac
d
ation Damag
e, The Netherl
U.A., Whitfill
) Drilling Fl
Histories and
SPE 71368
Annual Tech
ition. New Or
, F.M., Caru
one, R., and
ction and
ures in
voirs. paper
e 2000 SPE
rence and Exh
-1
]
cture apertu
different va
SPE
ge Conferen
lands.
l, D.L, and M
luid losses an
d Practical S
presented at
hnical Confer
rleans, Louisia
ugo, C., Ch
de Bacco, G
Characteriza
Naturally
SPE 63266
E Annual
hibition, Dalla
Value
30E+6
20E+6
0.8
10
0.000875
8.5714E-00
0.2
35E+6
0.1
10
0
20
ure vs. press
alues
E 163034
nce, The
Mody, F.K.
nd Gains:
olutions,
the 2001
rence and
ana.
elini, V.,
G. (2000)
ation of
Fractured
presented
Technical
as, Texas.
08
sure for
SPE 1630


Figure


Figure


034
e 2b: Semilo
time for d
3a: Mud los
fra
og plot of mu
different v
ss rate vs. ti
acture radii
ud loss rate
values
ime for diffe


e vs. F

erent F

Figure 2c: C
d
Figure 3b: C
diff
Cumulative l
different va
Cumulative l
ferent fractu
loss vs. time
alues
loss vs. time
ure radii
7
e for
e for
8

Figure

Figure


e 4a: Semilo
time for diff
5a: Fractur
differ
og plot of mu
ferent wellb
re aperture v
rent n
n
valu
ud loss rate
bore radii
vs. pressure
es

vs. Figu
e for Figu

ure 4b: Cart
time for
ure 5b: Mud
tesian plot o
r different w
d loss rate vs
n
n
value
SPE
of mud loss
ellbore radi
s. time for d
s
E 163034
rate vs.
i
different
SPE 1630


Figu

Figu

034
ure 5c: Cum
differ
ure 6b: Cum
differ
mulative loss
rent n
n
valu
mulative loss
rent w
s
valu
s vs. time fo
ues
s vs. time fo
ues


or Fig
or
gure 6a: Sem
time fo
Figure 7a: P
different t
h
milog plot of
or different
Pressure at
he
values in a
f mud loss r
w
s
values
r=r
w
vs. time
a kick situat
9
rate vs.
e for
tion
10

Figure 7








L
o
s
s

/
K
i
c
k

R
a
t
e

(
m
3
/
s
)

7b: Loss/Kic
t
ck rate vs. t
t
he
values
time for diffe

erent Fig

C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

L
o
s
s

/
K
i
c
k

(
m
3
)


ure 7c: Cum
dif
mulative Los
fferent t
he
v
SPE
ss/Kick vs. t
values
E 163034
time for